# C_2020077EN.01002401.xml

| 9.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 77/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 77/24

---

Appeal brought on 28 November 2019 by FV against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 September 2019 in Case T-27/18 RENV, FV v Council

(Case C-875/19 P)

(2020/C 77/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: FV (represented by: É. Boigelot, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of 19 September 2019 (T-27/18 RENV) and, consequently, grant the appellant the order sought at first instance and therefore annul the appellant’s 2013 staff report; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of 19 September 2019 (T-27/18 RENV) and, consequently, grant the appellant the order sought at first instance and therefore annul the appellant’s 2013 staff report;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and in the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and in the appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The judgment under appeal dismissed the action for the annulment of the appellant’s 2013 staff report. In the appellant’s ground of appeal, he claims, first, that the General Court infringed the duty to review and the obligation to state reasons and distorted the file and, second, that it infringed the Guide to staff reports, the obligation to state reasons and the duty to care for staff, and manifestly erred in its assessment.

The appellant claims that, by requiring the existence and disclosure of medical certificates and subsequently taking the view that those absences were not justified and could validly be regarded as capable of being taken into account in the assessment period, the General Court misconstrued the Guide to staff reports. In addition, the decision to take account necessarily, or even automatically, of absences and/or late arrivals in assessing the appellant negatively is unlawful. Lastly, the Council did not challenge the medical nature of those absences and/or late arrivals or criticise the justification of the absences through the adoption of administrative measures and approved applications for regularisation of the late arrivals ex post. The General Court therefore contradicted itself and distorted the evidence in the file.

Furthermore, a lack of regular presence at the workplace does not mean ipso facto a lack of continuous effort. Moreover, no individually tailored timetable was registered in the programme relating to the appellant’s working times. In addition, a general comment considering that the appellant’s sense of responsibility is remarkable can be expressed only by an excellent evaluation. As regards the assessment of quality of work, the reasons given in the staff report do not relate to the actual quality of work delivered by the appellant. Lastly, as far as concerns the assessment of team working and human skills, the General Court failed to take into consideration several pieces of evidence in the file. The appellant claims that the General Court therefore distorted the evidence in the file, erred in its interpretation and statement of reasons, breached the Guide to staff reports and failed to conduct a lawful and accurate review of a manifest error of assessment.

Lastly, the appellant claims that the situation of professional mistreatment and psychological harassment suffered by him was overlooked in the judgment under appeal. The General Court also breached the duty to care for staff by overlooking the appellant’s interests and taking into account only the alleged interests of the service.

---